United States v. Esteban Banuelos Armenta, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10190
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:10-cr-02684-RCC-
CRP-2
v.
ESTEBAN BANUELOS ARMENTA, Jr., MEMORANDUM*
AKA Esteban Banuelos-Armenta, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: BYBEE and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and HELLERSTEIN,*** Senior
District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Esteban Banuelos-Armenta, Jr., appeals the revocation of his supervised
release. We review for abuse of discretion and affirm.1 United States v. Harvey,
659 F.3d 1272, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011).
While on supervised release for a federal conviction, Armenta was arrested
for, and pleaded guilty to, committing a state crime. After Armenta served his
sentence for the state crime, he was transferred directly to federal custody for an
evidentiary hearing on the government’s petition to revoke Armenta’s supervised
release (based on his commission of the state crime—a violation of his conditions
of release). Armenta asserted that the government failed to prove he was the same
man who committed the state crime. In particular, Armenta objected to the district
court’s admission of a printout from the Arizona Department of Corrections’
website (“ADOC pen pack abstract”) to prove that Armenta pleaded guilty to, and
served time for, the state crime. Armenta also sought to compel discovery of the
identities of the victims in the state crime to prove that a different man with the
same name as Armenta committed the state crimes. Armenta’s arguments are
without merit.
1
Armenta’s Motion to Strike Addendum and All Arguments Based Upon
Addendum is denied.
-2-
1. The district court did not violate due process by admitting the ADOC pen
pack abstract, because the evidence was reliable. See United States v. Walker, 117
F.3d 417, 420 (9th Cir. 1997) (trial court’s failure to conduct balancing test was
harmless error “given the reliability of the evidence”). The ADOC pen pack
abstract merely confirmed the information the district court had already learned
from certified documents and witness testimony. In addition, the ADOC pen pack
abstract was likely admissible under the public records exception to hearsay. See
id. at 421 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)). Finally, Armenta has not shown that he
was prejudiced by the admission. See id. Armenta does not contend that the ADOC
pen pack abstract contained inaccurate information or that he did not commit the
state crime reflected therein. Nor could he. As demonstrated by certified
documents and witness testimony, Armenta pled guilty to the state crime and was
transferred directly from state to federal custody, such that there could be no doubt
that the man who pled guilty to the state crimes was the man sitting at the federal
revocation hearing.
2. The district court did not plainly err by denying Armenta’s motion to compel
discovery of victim identities. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(a), 52(b) (failure to preserve
an objection at the district court limits our appellate review to plain error). Victim
testimony regarding the state crime was immaterial to the revocation proceeding,
-3-
because Armenta had already pled guilty to the crime in state court. Thus, “the
interest of justice d[id] not require the witness[es] [Armenta sought to subpoena] to
appear.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C).
AFFIRMED.
-4-